Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.”
-
Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.” https://reason.com/2026/09/04/doj-says-barring-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-could-severely-hamper-tech-progress/
I remain unconvinced.
As a layperson, I’ve been told that the point of copyright has been to make sure the writer and their publisher can earn a livelihood, so they may live to write another days
I know if I were to consistently copy or distribute copyrighted articles in such a way that it affects these companies bottom line to the point where they downsize, they’d come for me with an arsenal of lawyers.
So there are consequences for us small people.
But along comes OpenAI and the gang, and because they transform these copyrighted works into a model, it’s suddenly alright if they don’t license it even though they actually replace a whole numbers of writers?
That doesn’t add up to me.
I don’t buy the hand waving in this article about “it’s not replacing jobs” either. It shouldn’t, but it does, right now, because management isn’t always smart.
I think copyright is flawed and a bandaid for a not-working economic system, but you can’t rip off the bandaid before you fixed the system.
So that’s a no from me.
-
Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.” https://reason.com/2026/09/04/doj-says-barring-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-could-severely-hamper-tech-progress/
@eff for fucks sake.
No! Bad EFF!
-
@Big_Blue_Gnu @eff Um, no. Our rage is not corporate-backed and is not copyright-maximalism. The idea that AI training is wrong is copyright-minimalist. It doesn't even depend on copyright, just "moral rights" of authors.
@dalias
@Big_Blue_Gnu @eff
First off, I agree that AI companies are bad and they stole from probably every single one of us and especially authors to work the way they do.
BUT, I think its important to recognize that we're at one hell of a cross roads.
On the one hand, we can agree with the AI companies and say that this is transformative and therefore fair use. We can still argue that the data was almost certainly stole via piracy, but the important argument by the AI company is turning books into training data and making an LLM is transformative.
On the other hand, we can agree with the media industry. That copyright laws need to be tightened and more strictly enforced so that an AI company can get in trouble if they produce content that even vaguely resembles a copyrighted IP. Disney will go after power cable companies for the damn Mickey Mouse plugs.
And I hate both of these options. I imagine most people hate both these options, but without a good "middle of the road" option at the moment, I'm gonna have to side with the AI companies on the question of fare use.
Everything else about their scheme is deplorable and easy to hate. I will be excited when the scheme fails.
I also recognize they're not "on our side" about copyright they are simply exploiting fair use. That said I think if they win, they will weaken IP laws over all. -
Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.” https://reason.com/2026/09/04/doj-says-barring-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-could-severely-hamper-tech-progress/
@eff yooooo this sucks
i mean, completely unsurprising from y’all at this point, but regardless. sucks. big sucks. sucks shit.
-
@dalias
@Big_Blue_Gnu @eff
First off, I agree that AI companies are bad and they stole from probably every single one of us and especially authors to work the way they do.
BUT, I think its important to recognize that we're at one hell of a cross roads.
On the one hand, we can agree with the AI companies and say that this is transformative and therefore fair use. We can still argue that the data was almost certainly stole via piracy, but the important argument by the AI company is turning books into training data and making an LLM is transformative.
On the other hand, we can agree with the media industry. That copyright laws need to be tightened and more strictly enforced so that an AI company can get in trouble if they produce content that even vaguely resembles a copyrighted IP. Disney will go after power cable companies for the damn Mickey Mouse plugs.
And I hate both of these options. I imagine most people hate both these options, but without a good "middle of the road" option at the moment, I'm gonna have to side with the AI companies on the question of fare use.
Everything else about their scheme is deplorable and easy to hate. I will be excited when the scheme fails.
I also recognize they're not "on our side" about copyright they are simply exploiting fair use. That said I think if they win, they will weaken IP laws over all.@nagaram @Big_Blue_Gnu @eff Stop it! This is such a batshit delusional take. There is utterly no way in which fascist corporations and a fascist legal system are going to deliver *to us* the death of copyright! They are not trying to do that! They are seeking a carve-out to take from us while giving nothing back. They are seeking to make things strictly worse for us.
-
Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.” https://reason.com/2026/09/04/doj-says-barring-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-could-severely-hamper-tech-progress/
@eff speaking as a card-carrying paid up #EFF member… fuck off with this shitty take
🤬 if you’re gung ho on copyright, how about something more defensible like “we believe that (US) copyright laws are a net positive but in the light of wholesale unpaid slurping of human creativity and labour for billionaire profits, clearly they’re broken and need to be fixed – here’s how we plan to fight this”
JFC, do better 🤮
-
Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.” https://reason.com/2026/09/04/doj-says-barring-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-could-severely-hamper-tech-progress/
@eff oh fuck all of the way off
-
Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.” https://reason.com/2026/09/04/doj-says-barring-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-could-severely-hamper-tech-progress/
@eff this really is a disappointing, "not donating again"-level of take
-
@nagaram @Big_Blue_Gnu @eff Stop it! This is such a batshit delusional take. There is utterly no way in which fascist corporations and a fascist legal system are going to deliver *to us* the death of copyright! They are not trying to do that! They are seeking a carve-out to take from us while giving nothing back. They are seeking to make things strictly worse for us.
@dalias
@Big_Blue_Gnu @eff
What's the delusion here?
If there's a carve out, unless it explicitly states some cringe shit like "Copyright good and strong unless you're a recognized AI company" (which I won't rule out). Then is that not a weakening of copyright for the purposes of fare use?
I want to be convinced of this but I don't see a rational path for copyright specifically to be made worse. That doesn't make sense as a goal for the AI companies since the cost to end these class actions would probably be the cost of a single data center to get all the publishers off their back and then simply ignore the rest of us.
Best case is copyright gets weakened or we get another argument against it, or the most likely thing is the AI corpos settle with Penguin and the gang every time they get caught every couple of years. -
Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.” https://reason.com/2026/09/04/doj-says-barring-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-could-severely-hamper-tech-progress/
@eff I did NOT expect this from you. Please reconsider.
-
Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.” https://reason.com/2026/09/04/doj-says-barring-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-could-severely-hamper-tech-progress/
@eff Well, that is the end of me supporting your apparently traitorous org.
Get the fuck out of here EFF with this take.
-
@lilyyllyyllyly @eff I guess I am cancelling my contributions... sigh
EFF has always been a bit too libertarian for my taste but giving this support in Reason of all places...
@michel_slm @lilyyllyyllyly @eff EGGTD.
-
@nagaram @Big_Blue_Gnu @eff Stop it! This is such a batshit delusional take. There is utterly no way in which fascist corporations and a fascist legal system are going to deliver *to us* the death of copyright! They are not trying to do that! They are seeking a carve-out to take from us while giving nothing back. They are seeking to make things strictly worse for us.
@dalias
@Big_Blue_Gnu @eff
Saw some of your other posts and convos.
I think my understanding of the current state of the copyright debate is out of date. -
@Big_Blue_Gnu @eff Um, no. Our rage is not corporate-backed and is not copyright-maximalism. The idea that AI training is wrong is copyright-minimalist. It doesn't even depend on copyright, just "moral rights" of authors.
@dalias @Big_Blue_Gnu @eff I want the "AI" to die for other reasons more pertinent to ethics.
The part that annoys me with regard to copyright is the hypocrisy. The deliberate exception because it's part of the capital-owning class (or those under their effective orders) that's doing the mass infringement. Try doing so yourself and you'll drown in debt.
Copyright could and should be abolished, my ethical objections would remain untouched. -
Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.” https://reason.com/2026/09/04/doj-says-barring-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-could-severely-hamper-tech-progress/
@eff Even if creating a generative model is transformative, selling the use of one as a for-profit service to undercut creative artists is preventing the kind of creation that copyright was intended to foster.
But since the generation of statistically similar outputs ensures that the further-derived generated outputs are minimally transformative of the sources, it’s misleading to describe the model itself as transformative.
These services should be required to license their sources.
-
Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.” https://reason.com/2026/09/04/doj-says-barring-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-could-severely-hamper-tech-progress/
@eff I'm surprised you're bragging about your staff attorney's boneheaded comment.
P.S. What are you patting yourself on the back for? Having a your staff attorney quoted in an article? I used to think EFF was cool but shameless self promotion is the opposite of cool. It's lame and gross.
-
Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.” https://reason.com/2026/09/04/doj-says-barring-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-could-severely-hamper-tech-progress/
@eff
It's really not. -
Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.” https://reason.com/2026/09/04/doj-says-barring-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-could-severely-hamper-tech-progress/
@eff No sane person loves transformative work that makes the internet unusable, boils the ocean, and makes hardware and electricity expensive
-
@eff@mastodon.social bad take worstie
-
Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.” https://reason.com/2026/09/04/doj-says-barring-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-could-severely-hamper-tech-progress/
@eff@mastodon.social So, uh, you taking donations from the Slop companies now? Is this why you're dropping toxic takes like this?
They're literally destroying the commons by scraping web servers to death, they're burning the planet with this stampede to build data centers and polluting water, and then their poorly designed models aren't even any good at what they claim to be able to do. They introduce bugs, give bad answers, and record incorrect information in medical transcripts!
But sure, fight for the big guy as he puts his boot on the necks of the rest of us.
wow that's fucking bad